Friday Open Thread

My friend Al Giordano says:

This adventure in unintended consequences will become bigger than life for years to come on the blogosphere. Anytime the self-proclaimed "progressives" go off trying to eat their own (which for some, is daily), the rallying cry will be sounded: "Remember Caroline Kennedy!"

Oookaaay. At least they can't say it to me and Jeralyn who either had no problem with Kennedy (me) or enthusiastically supported her (J.) Though I doubt too many folks are actually worried about a "Remember Caroline!" battle cry. Anyway, this is an Open Thread.

< The 3rd Most Influential "Liberal" In The Media | Gillibrand And Progressives: A Primary Challenge And A Focus On Issues >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by scribe on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 11:14:51 AM EST
    Caroline was, pretty much universally (at least in the left blogosphere) seen as a combination of:
    (a) the bearer of a dynastic name, who
    (b)(1) had never run for elected office, and
    (2)  had no real experience in appointed office or government, and
    (3)had shown herself as either uninterested, diffident, or uninvolved in learning what the issues were and what her positions were, and
    (c)(1) was not good before the press and
    (2) didn't have good handlers.

    I don't think there was any real malice against her.  Some cattiness, yes.  This seemed particularly among those who either (a) resented her going to the head of the line before doing the work to earn the spot there, (b) harbored suspicions (or worse) about her handlers' intentions or her patrons' intentions, or (c) just thought that appointing a woman with a famous name and lineage was a bad idea.  The gossip about her life, such as it was, had next to no effect on her chances.

    But, I think the overarching reaction to her was that she is doubtless a nice, middle-aged woman who really wasn't quite up to the job she was being handed, was not likely to grow into it, and should not have been given it as a result.

    Frankly, the only things to "remember" about this episode were (a) vet your candidates through primaries and working their way up the ladder from lesser job to greater and (b) Patterson and Clinton were wise enough to stall this out until Clinton had been confirmed, to give time for the warts and deficiencies to reveal themselves.  Sometimes the best, wisest thing to do is nothing while waiting for the thing to unfold.

    Of course (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by JThomas on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 11:36:57 AM EST
    there was lingering resentment out in the blogasphere that CK had supported Obama also and that was in the mix also.

    My take:

    1. The majority of blogapundits(excluding BTD and Jeralyn) came out strongly against CK because they seem to generally be a club of sorts and decided that the ''proper'' stance for true lefties was to join Peter King and other GOPer in trashing CK.

    2. The mainstream media now is lazy and checks into the blogs for their take on the prevailing opinion in that sphere and dutifully reported that CK was being hammered on both right and left which meant her candidacy was in trouble.

    3. CK is not picture perfect in her roll-out and that added fuel to the fire.

    4. Paterson sticks his finger in the air..can see how the wind is blowing and has reservations.

    5. A bunch of silliness ensues...dueling spinners from both camps  leak crap to CYA.

    6. Paterson takes counsel from Schumer to go with Gillibrand who is wealthier than CK and can probably fundraise herself...

    7. Paterson picks Gillibrand....Blogapundits go pale wondering what they have wrought.

    If Kos and Hamsher were honest they would admit while they definitely did not want CK, if it as a choice between the two..they probably would pick CK because this way NY loses a house seat that they will not get back, has a messy,divisive primary battle among dems, and has a blue dog that can not be counted on to help get stuff done the critical first two years of Obama's presidency.

    But, do not hold your breath waiting for them to admit this. I hope she works out.


    This makes no sense (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 11:41:07 AM EST
    "there was lingering resentment out in the blogasphere that CK had supported Obama also and that was in the mix also."

    The overwhelming majority of the blogosphere supported Obama.


    Particularly Kos and Hamsher (none / 0) (#21)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 11:57:10 AM EST
    Also, if you think the media types meant the blogs by "criticism from the left and right," you're living in an igloo somewhere.

    Against HRC? (none / 0) (#106)
    by JThomas on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 02:46:08 PM EST
    Look at this site..they still can barely contain their anger at Obama's primary victory over Hillary.
    I am not saying it totally breaks down that way but I would guess that a vast majority of Hillary supporters did not support CK.

    Not a critique,just an observation.


    This site (none / 0) (#107)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 02:47:32 PM EST
    is not 1% of the blog traffic on the Left.

    kos defends himself (none / 0) (#49)
    by jes on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 12:46:16 PM EST
    To me, this is a win-win situation. There are two alternatives:

    1. Gillibrand was voting her districts, and will now tack hard to the left as she represents a much more liberal New York, or

    2. She gets primaried and a more progressive Democrats -- one chosen by the voters! -- gets in. Heck, it could even be Caroline Kennedy, assuming she isn't afraid to face real voters!

    Gillibrand is an accomplished politician who won in a brutally difficult House seat. But what made her successful in that district won't make her successful statewide. So she either adapts, or she dies. And in the end, it'll be the voters making that call.

    As it should be.


    Ugh. I find myself agreeing with him.


    If the Blogs really had that much power, (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 11:38:32 AM EST
    all the politicians and pundits who have been exposed, slammed and crushed with bigger words than "Princess" would be gone. We wouldn't have been able to have a Presidential election this year...all the candidates would have dropped out "for personal reasons" using the concept that the blogger's words are so powerful.

    Of all the people in topics this past year, I have to say that Caroline is not the best example of what bloggers are capable of doing to the character of politicians.  There are several highly place politicians that will come to my mind when it is appropriate to say "Remember...." as a warning for what can happen when the bloggers and the media get over-zealous with their opinions.



    In my opinion (none / 0) (#62)
    by SOS on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 01:15:16 PM EST
    the internet has become the perfect companion to the PTB.

    Keeps people off the streets, rather then taking to them.

    Talk is cheap


    what's "PTB" ? (none / 0) (#110)
    by DFLer on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 03:07:52 PM EST
    Maybe (none / 0) (#118)
    by eric on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 03:32:10 PM EST
    Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB)?  Pulmonary Tuberculosis?

    Actually, I think it is the Powers That Be.


    You left out CK's over-casual (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by oldpro on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 11:40:44 AM EST
    attitude toward a major Democratic issue - GOTV is not a hobby in Democratic circles.  It is basic.

    Carolyn who? (5.00 / 0) (#17)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 11:43:50 AM EST
    Read the tabloids...she wanted (none / 0) (#144)
    by oldpro on Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 02:22:04 AM EST
    a public persona?  Now she'll have one and it won't be pretty.

    Obama better give her an ambassadorship and ship her overseas.


    She (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by eric on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 11:40:58 AM EST
    is just so profoundly inarticulate.  That was the deal-breaker.  She can't speak effectively at all.

    She also seemed like she might (5.00 / 6) (#32)
    by Anne on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 12:09:55 PM EST
    fall asleep in between an "um" and a "you know" - just no energy or dynamic quality about her at all; I had a hard time associating what I was seeing and hearing with what I thought I should be seeing and hearing from someone who professed to want this job - someone oozing qualities of ready-to-roll-up-her-sleeves-and-word-hard.

    I guess it's not her fault that somehow she's missing what we have come to think of as the trademark Kennedy charisma and energy - but that could well be because she is more a Bouvier in personality than she is a Kennedy.  

    And I have to say that I did think it was pretty weird that there was no evidence of support for her from her husband and children; I understand "private" and I certainly think she needed to be judged for herself, but I just didn't get the total absence of her immediate family.  Something clicked for me when I read last night and today some genereic references to  marriage "problems."

    She may well be more liberal than we will ever know, and that could be why Paterson did not think her a good fit for the entire State of New York, but I don't think anyone needs to feel guilty or be ashamed of rejecting her for what she did not bring to the table.  If that makes sense.


    I believe she's extremely liberal (none / 0) (#127)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 04:15:36 PM EST
    to the extent that she's actually thought about stuff, which doesn't appear to be all that much or all that deeply, which is, of course, the whole problem.

    It was such a throwback to the '20s (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Cream City on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 12:14:46 PM EST
    when pols' wives and daughters were put in office to pander to women voters, since men in power didn't know what to do.  That was because the men  didn't listen to women, who had been telling them for decades exactly how they would vote -- i.e., just as men do, across the spectrum and, as a suffragist said, sometimes just as stupidly.

    We all ought to hope that, in a new millennium, men as well as women have come a long way in politics, to the point that experience would be rewarded -- and required.  Experience in voting, for a start, and Kennedy didn't show much interest in that, either.  Now, really -- would a man with her (lack of) record even be considered?

    Women in politics have been told that they were left out of a lot of loops because they had to get experience, run for office, etc.  They have done so for decades now, and all for nought, if the rules would revert again . . if it turns out that it's still only (note, only) about being an appendage to a man -- about who's yer daddy.


    Yes Absolutely (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by squeaky on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 12:29:26 PM EST
    Now, really -- would a man with her (lack of) record even be considered?

    Michael Bennet, appointed by Ken Salazar for one.

    And if you missed the last eight years, most of BushCo appointees had no experience despite their gender. Remember Heckuva Job Brownie?


    Appointed... (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 12:48:25 PM EST
    ...by Ritter to replace Salazar.  


    Your larger point is spot-on.  Politically very unknown and inexperienced.  Not even on the radar when names were being discussed to fill our open Senate seat.  


    For once, we agree. (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by Cream City on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 12:57:42 PM EST
    And I'm buoyed by news of lifting the ban on funding abortions overseas (although let's wait and see how much we can afford in this crashed economy) and the FDA approving stem-cell research again -- and the sun is shining in my fair city, for once.

    Sure, we bombed a country again with a nuclear bomb of its own, which worries me greatly with many friends in that region, but at least my spouse is home safely from India.  And today we have news in said fair city that even our beloved pioneering Harley Davidson Company -- an employee-owned company -- is crashing, with profits down 60% and more than 1,000 more layoffs in this seriously stricken area's economy already.  And the temps drop again tomorrow into the danger zone, the pipes may freeze and burst, more of the ceiling may fall . . . but maybe hope will spring eternal by spring, when we're well into these First 100 Days.  The First 2 Days did good.


    Glad To Hear (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by squeaky on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 01:11:31 PM EST
    That your hopes are buoyed. I think many Americans and people of the world are optimistic about Obama. We'll see, but I agree that he is off to a very good start.

    He does seem to be listening to us too. That is a good thing. Calling for people to become active and then actually listening is very good politics, imo.


    A poll-driven president , like (none / 0) (#77)
    by Cream City on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 01:37:56 PM EST
    a poll-driven candidate, is not all bad, as I just was saying to my spouse yesterday.  Started a silly argument, as he's Obama-mad, so he just got mad -- and wasn't hearing me say, again, that it's not all bad.  I was using an example of one of the issues on which Obama was backing off last week but then came through yesterday, so I think he's listening.

    All good things are only good in moderation, of course.  Especially when polling is just badly done.  But a blending of assessment mechanisms with polls as only a piece, as well as monitoring of blogs and ye olde letters to the editor, etc., is just smart and responsive.  It's a public opinion-driven president, which is okay when it's smart public opinion hewing to good principles.  In other words, my principles -- but they are, so far, the good principles of ye olde Dem party.

    So now, can we please put blog pressure on Obama to live up to his pledge to repeal FISA?  That was supposed to be on Day One, as I recall.  If I see that happen, I really may hail a New Dawn for America.  

    Until then . . . it's beginning to clear but still a bit foggy.  Living near a Great Lake, we start a lot of days in iffy, foggy ways -- and learn to not trust forecasts as to how they will turn out but just prepare for turns to the better or worse at any time.  So I see the political climate as much like my climate just now. . . .


    While the ban on funding abortions (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by sallywally on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 06:37:56 PM EST
    is effectively lifted, what's really been lifted is the ban on funding family planning, including contraception, etc., which is so important to women in developing and poor countries, as long as the organizations providing family planning either offered abortions or offered information about them.

    Bush wanted to leave them barefoot and pregnant, in other words.


    Yes, thanks for reminding me (none / 0) (#138)
    by Cream City on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 06:43:44 PM EST
    that this is more far-reaching -- and really, in its breadth, more what many women and families need around the world.

    "Remember Caroline Kennedy." (none / 0) (#147)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 10:51:07 AM EST
    Which one?  The highly-educated woman who co-wrote several books, worked to raise money for public education in New York City, but dissed the media; or, the highly-educated woman who was an early, very public endorser of Obama, who sought Hillary Clinton's seat and will now probably work hard to burnish her previous image?

    Wingnuts like Cornyn, Limbaugh, and (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Edger on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 11:19:15 AM EST
    the beltway pro-torture howlers are bad enough, but then there are those on the Democratic side of the aisle, in the House, and in the Senate, and even in the new administration, as well as in the media and in left blogs, who refuse to condemn it, or speak out against it, or call for prosecution of self admitted war criminals...

    What about those of us who knew better, we who knew the words were lies and worse than lies? Why did we sit silent? Why did we take part? Because we loved our country. What difference does it make if a few political extremists lose their rights? What difference does it make if a few racial minorities lose their rights? It is only a passing phase. It is only a stage we are going through. It will be discarded sooner or later. Hitler himself will be discarded -- sooner or later.  The country is in danger. We will march out of the shadows! We will go forward. FORWARD is the great password.

    Also I haven't peeked in on Joshua (Operation Comeback: Prepare to bomb Iran) Muravchick, Michael Ledeen, and the rest of the gang at AEI lately. I used to check in there every so often to see what they were planning. I'll have to hold my nose and go have a look one of these days. I expect they're jumping around frantically, howling, and throwing feces through the bars by now, like the torture lobbyists...

    Crazy (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by lilburro on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 12:55:51 PM EST
    how what you quote rings true with our country today.  Shameful.

    Shameful, and very, very sad... (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Edger on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 01:46:53 PM EST
    Often, creative artists perceive the zeitgeist with greater clarity than do politicians or journalists. One example is Shostakovich's posthumously published memoir (as told to Solomon Volkov), Testimony (Hamish Hamilton, London, 1979). There may well be as much Volkov as Shostakovich in this Testimony, but many Russians who knew Shostakovich well, including his son Maxim and also noted cellist Mstislav Rostropovich, considered the overall content of Testimony to be authentic.

    Here, for me, was the money quote in the memoir:

    I will never believe that there are only idiots everywhere. They must be wearing masks---a survival tactic that permits you to maintain a minimal decency. Now everyone says, 'We didn't know, we didn't understand. We believed Stalin. We were tricked, ah, how cruelly we were tricked."

    I feel anger at such people. Who was it who didn't understand, who was tricked? An illiterate old milkmaid? The deaf-mute who shined shoes on Ligovsky Prospect? No, they seemed to be educated people--writers, composers, actors. The people who applauded the Fifth Symphony. I'll never believe that a man who understood nothing could feel for the Fifth Symphony. Of course they understood, they understood what was happening around them and they understood what the Fifth was about.

    Shostakovich's Fifth Symphony was composed in 1937 and was first performed that November in Leningrad, which had been especially hard hit by the depredations of Stalin's dictatorship. Many in the audience wept upon hearing it, and the crowd gave a forty minute standing ovation at its conclusion.

    But Stalin himself managed to hang on to power and public acclaim for another eighteen years, and he ended up dying peacefully in his bed--unperturbed, unchallenged, and unpunished for his crimes.

    --FMArouet yesterday


    here's a bad sport: (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by lilburro on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 01:58:02 PM EST

    However, Michael Scheuer, a former CIA analyst who helped set up the rendition programme and headed the unit hunting for Osama bin Laden, accused Obama of putting Americans are at risk.

    "It's just more evidence that the Clinton children are back in control. They just have no idea of what kind of world they are facing," Scheuer said. "No matter what they think of Guantánamo or the black sites America is infinitely safer because of it."

    He argued that CIA officers would be demoralised by the decisions, and that some were fearful they could be prosecuted for acts that the Bush administration had declared to be lawful.

    "I am very sure they feel there is going to be a witch hunt coming," he said. "The bigger issue is that the message this sends to the people - whether FBI or CIA or NSA (national security agency) or military - is that the leadership of this country has no idea of what they are fighting."

    Scheuer is another (none / 0) (#94)
    by Edger on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 02:06:50 PM EST
    who not only doesn't even bother with denying that torture has been a regular practice or try to pretend that it's somehow "legal", but instead glorifies and tries to justify it... and tries to use the excuse of "just following orders"...

    I thought he wrote an anti-Bush (none / 0) (#137)
    by sallywally on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 06:43:41 PM EST
    book....after he left the CIA. No?

    Like BTD and Jeralyn I was kind of (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Jjc2008 on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 11:23:57 AM EST
    neutral about Caroline Kennedy.  But after listening to the hysterical diatribe of CDS afflicted Lawrence O'Donnell, I have to admit I am kind of happy about the Patterson's pick. I am so sick of the Irish Catholic Boys' (and a few girls) Club of O'Donnell, Matthews, Dowd, et al, deciding that THEY and THEIRS are the democratic party.  I am not thrilled with Blue Dogs in particular but hey, we do need a BIG TENT.

    I don't know of that many centrists who (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by tigercourse on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 11:35:37 AM EST
    support gay marriage. Gillibrand is from Albany, the most liberal part of the district she represents. I'm not over the moon about this pick, but with each passing minute I think there's a decent chance she will move left once she represents the whole state.

    That's all we can hope for at this point (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by andgarden on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 12:05:50 PM EST
    I think the signs are pretty good so far.

    Actually, Albany (none / 0) (#129)
    by daring grace on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 04:52:19 PM EST
    is not part of Gillibrand's (now) former district.

    But she does come from there and her roots go way back in the city's politics.


    So now he's killed (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 11:59:40 AM EST
    people for the first time.  Wonder how he feels about that.  Didn't take him long, I must say.

    I always wondered that (none / 0) (#47)
    by CST on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 12:36:44 PM EST
    I mean, every president has at some point.  But I wonder how many stop and think about it.  Really think.  I wonder how long the thinking lasts, and whether it fades with time.  I'm sure by the 10th or 11th time it's gotta feel different than the 1st.

    Seems like (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 03:55:04 PM EST
    in this case, he likely just told CIA or Defense or whoever has been carrying out these periodic targeted drone attacks in Pakistan to just keep on doing what they'd been doing.

    I do remember reading/hearing in Bill Clinton's case, the first time he had to actually order some kind of strike and people were killed, he was pretty shaken by it.  Since the U.S. wasn't involved in any ongoing wars or "police actions" or the like when he took office, it had to be a much more deliberate thing for him than it is for Obama, who's stepping into a number of continuing actions midstream and I wouldn't think would feel as personally burdened by the knowledge.


    CK is responsible for herself (5.00 / 7) (#27)
    by S on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 12:05:55 PM EST
    I have nothing against CK and hope that if she really was sincere about wanting to be in elected public service that she will now take the opportunity to put together a campaign, get up to snuff on the issues and start meeting the voters of NY...and then if she wins an election I will be the first to say "You Go Girl, you earned this and you are qualified and ready..."

    however, CK is the one responsible for what has transpired...she obviously was not prepared and not up to as I think her cousin said "she wanted to go straight to Broadway without doing any auditions or any off Broadway"  something like that

    Can we start being honest as we go forward...
    the bottom line is if her name wasn't Kennedy she would not have even been a consideration...now would be a wonderful time for her to follow thru on her statements about Obama inspiring her and wanting to contribute...it will be interesting to see if she really has the fire in the belly and is ready to roll up her sleeves, take the risk and get to work..

    I agree-Caroline did not seem ready for prime time (none / 0) (#119)
    by jawbone on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 03:33:04 PM EST
    and I really wanted her to be!

    As someone on Charlie Rose put it last night, Kennedys are not supposed to hem and haw and take forever to put a few phrases together.  Practice really is important: Had her father lived, very likely Caroline would have been subjected to the Kennedy family practice of having each child have something prepared to say at the dinner table about current events--and ready to defend what was said.

    I somehow don't think that was Jackie's take on how to raise children. But it might have made a difference in how well Caroline could have been at extemporaneous speaking.

    I wish her well. I hope, if she really wants to enter public life, that she will prepare herself, do the ground work, develope her speaking and campaigning skills, hone her take on issues (requires really considering where one stands on issues, of course), If she does that, I cannot see how she would fail in a state like NY.

    The attempt to get this appointment might put back a bit, but I feel she could come into the public eye as the more prepared politician and definitely get elected to something.


    Obama about to reverse gag (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 12:07:23 PM EST
    rule on abortion counseling.  He promised to do this, but when he didn't do it yesterday, which is when Bill Clinton did it and GWBush reinstituted it, there was some worry he might appease the Rick Warrens a bit by delaying.  Guess not.  Thank goodness.

    Yea! (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 12:36:15 PM EST
    My outlook on life continues to improve by leaps and bounds.

    Delayed (none / 0) (#142)
    by ricosuave on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 10:42:05 PM EST
    Maybe he just couldn't do it yet because he wasn't officially president due to the oath problems...

    Can we just put the gag rule and the hold on last minute rule changes on speed dial for new presidents?  We can make some print-and-sign templates where you just check the "impose gag rule" or "lift gag rule" boxes.  Since this is a standard new-president action for the past two decades, we might as well increase the efficiency of the operation.


    um, no, probably not. (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by cpinva on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 12:21:59 PM EST
    the rallying cry will be sounded: "Remember Caroline Kennedy

    nice lady, smart, attractive, good family, well educated, etc., but seemed wayyyyyyyy out of her element. a classier (and smarter) version of gov. sarah palin. frankly, i got the impression she put her name in the ring not so much because she really, really wanted the job, but because she felt like she was supposed to want it, being a kennedy and all. just my impression.

    i have no dog in this fight, except i do, since ultimately, the entire senate affects the entire country, not just one state.

    on a side note: an article in the wp today, opining (by donna brazille, among others) that ms. kennedy was done in by rampant sexism, not by her own inadequacies as a candidate. would someone please take ms. brazille out the back door, and send her away?

    as well, ms. brazille opined that gov. palin suffered the same sexism, in her vice presidential campaign, ignoring entirely her utter vacuuity and ignorance. i guess that didn't matter as much as her wardrobe.

    That Brazille is quite a character. Does (5.00 / 7) (#48)
    by tigercourse on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 12:43:23 PM EST
    everything in her power to prevent the first female President and then goes around whining when her buddy (or at least her buddy's buddy) isn't picked.

    Prima Donna B. did not get far (5.00 / 7) (#60)
    by Cream City on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 01:03:40 PM EST
    and is all talk, literally, and no talent, either, having managed Dem campaigns so poorly.  And we know her kind of talk, as she was the first to play the race card in the campaign.  And the power behind the party's poor treatment of two states.  And more. . . .  I simply stopped listening to her, as she only made me madder at Dems for allowing themselves to be so traduced by such an opportunist.  The day she goes, I'll consider coming back to the party.  

    No 4th Amendment violation (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 12:32:10 PM EST
    In Louisiana, a decision came down that said reasonable suspicion to pull a driver over is created if the detective sees you loading a gun and having no hands on the wheel.

    Man, I should think so. (none / 0) (#76)
    by tigercourse on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 01:31:46 PM EST
    Fun fact pattern to read (none / 0) (#85)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 01:46:56 PM EST
    Especially as the defendant claimed an illegal search. Then claimed he didn't know the gun was there.  Then claimed the gun was his fiancee's

    Dybul Out (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by daring grace on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 12:32:10 PM EST
    Last week some around here expressed outrage that Obama was apparently going to retain Mark Dybul as the coordinator of the U.S. Global AIDS office due to Dybul's role in carrying out the Bush administration's abstinence-only policies regarding the disbursement of inetrnational AIDS prevention funding.

    According to the Washington Blade Dybul is now, apparently, out because Obama admin 'senior advisors' were concerned about the negative reaction from 'some AIDS activists and reproductive rights groups.'

    So I guess Obama is responsive to concerns of his constituents. Myself, I have mixed feelings since in looking at this issue after it came up here I found evidence that other groups involved in the international AIDS situation respected Dybul very much, felt he would enact the policies of the new administration forcefully, and lauded his breadth and depth of expertise in the field.

    Stem Cell (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by CST on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 12:33:15 PM EST
    The FDA approved the world's first study on human embryonic stem cell therapy today.

    This one was out of the control of the president, still, nice to see science going forward.

    Somebody forgot Poland (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 02:53:18 PM EST
    Bush is out, Obama is in and Warsaw has been left smarting after it emerged that having made personal farewell calls to the leaders of Denmark, Georgia and Greece, not to mention Russia, Germany and France, George W. didn't make one call to anyone in Poland.

    That's not good. Poland has been attempting to forge a special relationship with Washington for years, sometimes to the chagrin of its EU neighbours. When negotiating with Bush over F-16 fighter jets, Germany remarked that Poland shouldn't look to the EU for finance while looking to the States for security.

    If Warsaw was listening, it didn't show. Poland jumped head first into military allegiance to the superpower which saw Polish troops despatched to long and costly tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet this allegiance has been pretty one-way and any benefits from it have
    remained firmly on the State's side of the road. Promises of visa waivers and building contracts never materialised and any sense that this is a `special' relationship pretty much stops short of the Polish border.

    Ed Wight, Editor, New Poland Express

    It's very easy to please people like me (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by chezmadame on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 07:10:46 PM EST
    Have the courage of your convictions.

    It was "like cheese on Chinese food" (none / 0) (#1)
    by Cream City on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 11:13:40 AM EST
    with one last round of Jon Stewart doing Bush's voice -- but Obama's words.  Now, who will do so well in doing Obama's resonant tones, unless James Earl Jones takes up standup?

    So much for the economy being bad (none / 0) (#5)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 11:24:30 AM EST
    The Cubs have been sold.

    Dennis Culloton, a spokesman for Tom Ricketts, confirmed to The Associated Press that the bid is worth about $900 million and will include Wrigley Field and a 25 percent interest in a regional sports network.

    They also admit that it will take an additional  200 million or more to renovate Wrigley Field.

    Progressives? (none / 0) (#6)
    by SOS on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 11:26:40 AM EST
    I don't know perhaps we are just long overdue a reality check when so called "Progressives" splash the front page of their "Progressive Media" enterprise with . .


    What changed? (none / 0) (#15)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 11:42:09 AM EST
    Looks like the "well-run" communications from the Obama camp haven't translated well to the WH yet:

    Obama flashes irritation in press room and didn't like being asked a question.

    Also, the WH press corps natives are getting restless

    Perhaps (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 12:16:01 PM EST
    the Politico reporter needs to learn the difference between business and a social meet and greet. Watch the whole video and you will see it's Politico making much ado about nothing. Indeed, Obama comes off extremely well in the entire video.

    Obama media meet & greet


    Can't blame a guy for trying (none / 0) (#57)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 12:56:25 PM EST
    Good for him to try to ask a question. And Obama is equally entitled to be irritated.

    I think they were both doing their jobs here.


    Agreed (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 02:08:01 PM EST
    he was just trying to do a job. Wrong to consider it a big deal that he was rebuffed.

    Well (none / 0) (#99)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 02:13:49 PM EST
    Obama needs to realize that he's going to be questioned and can't get petulant every time he's asked a hard question.

    He wanted this job, and now that the press appears to be starting to do their jobs, he's got to s&ck it up. Every press gathering is not going to be all adoration all the time.


    Batter was getting too close to the plate (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 08:07:48 PM EST
    and the pitcher threw a brush back pitch. It's all in the game. Just standard boundary-seeking.  If petulance does not serve Obama's purposes, he will probably stop it. He seems like he can control it if he wants.

    Wow (1.00 / 1) (#103)
    by squeaky on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 02:23:10 PM EST
    Obama needs to realize that he's going to be questioned and can't get petulant every time he's asked a hard question.

    Quite the exaggeration there, no?  Makes you look foolish.


    Ha! (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 02:56:32 PM EST
    How I've missed you my sweet squeaky (blows kisses!)  How I've missed your incessant and inane name calling! (against TL's rules)

    Huh? (none / 0) (#114)
    by squeaky on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 03:15:14 PM EST
    Thanks for the kisses, never can get enough of those, but how did  you construe my comment to be name calling?

    The press room is a workplace (none / 0) (#132)
    by Cream City on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 05:18:46 PM EST
    like any newsroom.  There's socializing, sure, like any workplace.  But any official, President or otherwise, who enters it ought to be ready for reporters to earn their pay.  And any who don't know that, well, their media staffers are not earning their pay.  

    Usually, of course, pols learn this as candidates, especially in a presidential campaign.  That Obama didn't get the usual tough treatment may not have served him well, nor his staff, which showed naivete about the nooz business in several ways on Day ONe.

    And, frankly, every hallway of the White House and Capitol, every street in D.C., the world, are all reporters' workplace -- and the President's, 24/7, when reporters are around.  He's going to get questions all the time, as he should.  Heck, I remember reading the stories of LBJ being interviewed by Dickerson while he was taking a pee -- and that was LBJ's choice, not hers.

    But so much for Day One, and maybe Day Two.  Obama actually seems, from one report I read, to be getting savvier to all this at a faster rate than his staff.  I'll worry if they don't get it by Week Two -- because heads will roll if not, as he also seems to have high expectations of all.


    This is beautiful (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 12:49:17 PM EST
    The only way Obama gets to respond to the press in the same fashion Dubya did is if he intends to head toward a 22% approval rating due to living in a bubble and refusing to be accountable.  Obama's base doesn't respect such actions toward the press either, not at all the same way conservatives will allow their Presidents to act toward the press. It's hard work being the President and being the Press is a job too.  That thing about the press corridor being worse than the Middle East, I hope he isn't going to start giving Joe Biden a run for his least PC foot in his biggest mouth.

    Gibbs (none / 0) (#18)
    by SOS on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 11:54:07 AM EST
    should have briefed that Politico reporter that this was a get acquainted meeting. And Obama wasn't going to come in just to start giving everyone degrading nicknames before the first official press conference.

    Well (none / 0) (#39)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 12:28:45 PM EST
    in all fairness - it isn't the first time he's been irritated when asked substantive questions - for example, when he eats waffles.

    Oh My (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by daring grace on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 12:33:39 PM EST
    Irritable with the press...How DARE he!

    Just seems he would be nicer (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 12:36:08 PM EST
    since the press, you know, played a big part in getting him where he is today....

    I Suppose (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by daring grace on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 12:49:59 PM EST

    The instance of waffle irritability occurred 9 months ago and it doesn't seem to have dampened the press' enthusiasm for Obama much yet. So maybe he gets to 'be irritable' every so often.

    Truthfully, this kind of story of press peevishness ESPECIALLY after eight years of them bowing and scraping to and facilitating the Bush/Cheney horror show is just--at best--silly to me.


    Fair enough, (5.00 / 0) (#54)
    by dk on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 12:53:21 PM EST
    but, on the other hand, two wrongs don't make a right.  Just becuase the press sucked up and failed to do its job with Bush doesn't meant that they should do the same with Obama.

    I Hope They Don't (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by daring grace on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 01:23:55 PM EST
    'do the same with Obama'.

    It would be a welcome change to have a professional press that, through its aggressive attention to details, keep political, business etc leaders on their toes.

    After what they did for Reagan/Bush and what they did TO the Clintons and then what they did for Bush 43, I avidly await the arrival of the astute and unbiased press corps.

    I really do.


    Clinton Treatment? (none / 0) (#75)
    by squeaky on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 01:30:26 PM EST
    I hope that is not what you are hoping for.

    No (none / 0) (#131)
    by daring grace on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 05:00:22 PM EST
    I likened their fawning disregard of Reagan/Bush and Bush/Cheney with their torch and bloodhound exercises during the Clinton years: i.e. journalistic malpractice of the first order in each instance.

    And I long for a press corps that...you know...does its job rather than doing the business of the Right and wasting our time with kvetching about perceived slights from the people they cover (see Obama, irritability).


    Well (none / 0) (#133)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 05:28:00 PM EST
    Bush/Cheney didn't like to take questions and we were sold a war in Iraq.

    I would prefer that the press scream loudly if longly if the President dodges questions.


    Wow (none / 0) (#134)
    by daring grace on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 05:53:35 PM EST
    Equating eight years of Bush/Cheney with one reporter's pique over Obama deflecting a question in a casual visit to the press room in his first week in office...?

    Maybe (none / 0) (#16)
    by SOS on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 11:42:52 AM EST
    our missile manufacturers we're concerned about keeping the employees busy here at home. We do seem to be concerned though if we are not blowing up a million bucks or two or three or four every so often over there.

    Paterson and Gillibrand (none / 0) (#19)
    by MTSINAIMAMA on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 11:54:18 AM EST
    What a pair. Now you can add Schumer--I'll never vote for him again either.

    NYT (none / 0) (#20)
    by Upstart Crow on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 11:55:06 AM EST
    I'm really concerned about the Sulzberger rumors. The NYT is refusing to be open about this - but if they were promoting the woman who was sleeping with the publisher, the paper should have offered disclosure.

    This is a new low from the Fourth Estate, which was already in plenty of trouble without this.

    That story is at least 6 months old (none / 0) (#29)
    by scribe on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 12:06:57 PM EST
    If you'd have been reading the gossip blogs, you'd have known about it.

    I don't know how much difference it made.


    Don't read gossip columns (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Upstart Crow on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 12:58:50 PM EST
    Didn't know that's where I should scour for "news."

    It makes a big difference in the credibility of a major newspaper.

    NYT should have disclosed so its readers know without having to filter through rumor and gossip columns.

    A big bad for the big bad NYT.


    I can't say I'm a big fan of Bowers, but (none / 0) (#23)
    by dk on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 12:00:57 PM EST
    I agree with his initial reaction about Gillebrand.  He's willing to give her a chance:

    Case in point: the Wall Street bailout, otherwise known as TARP. Gillibrand voted against it back in October, then she voted in favor of the auto bailout in December, then voted in favor of Barney Frank's oversight bill on Wednesday, and then voted against the release of the second half of the funds yesterday. This makes Gillibrand one of about only 40-50 House Democrats who would have voted the same way I would have voted across all four of those bills...

    For the last eight years, the pattern of the working conservative majority has been for a minority of Democrats to join with unanimous Republicans in passing bad legislation. In that environment, Gillibrand would almost certainly have been a bad choice for Senator, especially from a state as blue as New York. However, that pattern of conservative governance broke down over the Wall Street bailout, and has never recovered. Since that time, there have been two sorts of roll call votes in Congress: unanimous Democrats passing bills with a minority of Republican support, and chaotic alliances between a majority of Republicans, along with a smattering of Blue Dogs and progressives, defeated by a "serious people consensus" alliance of a minority of Republicans, a majority of Democrats and the President (whether Bush or Obama). In this environment, someone like Gillibrand is arguably a more useful vote for progressives than a more traditionally liberal Senator would be, as demonstrated by her voting patterns on bailouts.

    We need senators who are willing to oppose Obama's economic strategy, as it is woefully inadequate.  Just read Krugman.  Frankly, my biggest concern about Caroline was that she would have gone along with Obama on economic policy.  

    I still maintain that it's nuts for a NY (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by tigercourse on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 12:03:58 PM EST
    politian to vote against something designed at preventing a financial sector meltdown. That vote against the bailout is my biggest problem with her.

    It's up there on the list for me (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by andgarden on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 12:05:10 PM EST
    Needless to say, (none / 0) (#31)
    by dk on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 12:07:47 PM EST
    some disagree.

    By that (1.00 / 1) (#105)
    by JThomas on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 02:42:17 PM EST
    standard, lets work for Republicans to get Senate seats...they will vote against Obama.

    Why would we want senators that will support the guy that just received more votes than any american candidate ever and has approval ratings of 80%?

    Lets fight him tooth and nail..that would make us republicans.


    You know, there are (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by dk on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 03:11:43 PM EST
    some people who oppose Obama's economic policies from the left.  If that doesn't include you, fine, though I assume that means you consider yourself center-right on the economy.

    And you (none / 0) (#122)
    by JThomas on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 03:40:33 PM EST
    would include Gillibrand in that group opposing Obama from the left?
    She voted for Bush's tax cuts.
    She is in the Blue Dog caucus of the house.
    And yet you are aligned?

    First off, as many have already (none / 0) (#128)
    by dk on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 04:21:06 PM EST
    posted, she has quite a left-wing voting record on many, many issues, and now is the second US senator (after Feingold) who openly supports gay marriage.  So far so good.

    As for the blue dog stuff on the economy, the point of Bowers' post is that sometimes you take your allies where you find them, and her record of voting (in my opinion) the right way on the bailout bills of the past few months (not just against TARP, but also voting in favor of the auto bailout, and in favor of Barney Frank's recent oversight bill) put her in some pretty good company.

    As far as tax cuts go, unfortunately Obama and his allies are promoting wasteful, silly tax cuts too.  And he is apparently fighting tooth and nail to keep the Bush tax cuts for another year or two (instead of repealing them this year).  Is Obama a Republican?


    Peanut Corporation of America (none / 0) (#28)
    by SOS on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 12:06:18 PM EST
    They just abrubtly shuttered the Georgia Plant yesterday putting all but 4 employees out onto the street.

    Nice guys huh?

    This the company... (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 02:16:13 PM EST
    ...that they've traced the salmonella outbreak back to.  It's not surprising that they shut the plant down.  

    As bad as one might feel for the workers at the plant, aren't the public health concerns of more importance in this instance?    


    How bout Food Safety? (none / 0) (#33)
    by SOS on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 12:11:17 PM EST
    Is anyone else disturbed by people who consider us suckers, fools and disposable as the plastic wrappers that cover the processed foods we consume in order to feed the medical industries who rely on poor health for profit and survival?

    Finally figured out (none / 0) (#97)
    by Fabian on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 02:11:32 PM EST
    how an animal-related salmonella contamination could end up in peanut butter.

    The answer was in my cupboard.  I use soy-based lecithin as a dietary supplement.  (Ironically - the actual bean is not good for me.)  Lecithin can be derived from soybeans or....from eggs.  Salmonella is typically found in eggs and poultry.  I'm now leaning towards the salmonella in peanut butter originating in egg lecithin.


    There's lecithin (none / 0) (#117)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 03:30:38 PM EST

    They made snack crackers. (none / 0) (#148)
    by Fabian on Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 12:14:26 PM EST
    Bright orange snack crackers.

    That part always put me off.  I like crackers.  I like peanut butter.  Why not reserve lurid colors for the packaging instead of putting it in the food?  

    Yes, Virginia, they put a lot of things in our food including food coloring.  Lecithin is hardly a radical ingredient.

    Peanut butter usually has peanuts, salt and something to act as an emulsifier to keep the oil from separating out.  Some are:
    corn syrup


    Caroline Kennedy could have had this seat (none / 0) (#36)
    by tigercourse on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 12:16:55 PM EST
    if she had decided she wanted to be in public service (and I still don't think she did want to be) a couple years earlier. If John Hall could win the 19th, so could Caroline. 2 years in the House would have been enough experience to appoint her. And while it's not as upstate as the 20th, the 19th is still far enough from the City to be considered a difference. Even a failed run in 2006 in the 26th or somewhere else would have helped her now considerablly as she would have worked out a lot of the kinks in her public presentation.

    If she wants a political future, she can still get it. Cuomo fell on his face in 2002 and is now one of the NY top dogs.

    There ARE second chances (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by andgarden on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 12:18:22 PM EST
    in American politics.

    Feeling my pain (none / 0) (#53)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 12:53:19 PM EST
    as a Mac person in a PC workplace.

    A change I would love to see would be some effort put into developing the needed national security protecting precautions for Apple products. I don't expect the government to provide Macs to all the workers if they don't believe the extra productivity would be worth the extra price (but it would be), but I can't even bring my own Mac into work and connect it to the internet because there are not Mac versions of the government required software. Maybe high level attention to this problem will bring about the needed changes.

    I know to some people it sounds like they are just whining, but it really is asking them to work with inferior tools. We should want people in important jobs to be able to use their skills most effectively, not be tying one hand behind their backs.

    Macs (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by SOS on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 01:18:11 PM EST
    are tools of the artist.

    Perhaps that's as it should be.


    I'm an engieer and there is nothing (none / 0) (#81)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 01:41:33 PM EST
    I can do on this PC I'm chained to at work that I can't do on my Mac at home. In fact, I can do more on my mac because I can easily run some of my Linux based programs on it by opening up the terminal window.

    But I can't spell engineer! (none / 0) (#82)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 01:41:50 PM EST
    dang PC!

    Heh (none / 0) (#89)
    by CST on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 01:59:15 PM EST
    proof that you are an engineer... you can't spell :)

    I am also an engineer.  I considered myself pretty bad at English - until I went to college with other engineers.  My spelling is horrible though, there is no logic to English spelling.


    I'm kind of a (none / 0) (#98)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 02:13:34 PM EST
    software engineer by default - got out of college during the 1989 recession and found my psych major/ history minor pretty worthless! But hey, anyone could be a programmer! Then I did go back to school for the simulation engineering cred.

    Anyway, I am at least a little more literate than most of my coworkers - which is why I get stuck proofreading their documents!


    Pattern recognition & memory. (none / 0) (#145)
    by oldpro on Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 04:08:27 AM EST
    Your employer (none / 0) (#88)
    by SOS on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 01:58:47 PM EST
    probably doesn't care.

    My advise is better learn quick. Especially in this economy.


    Lifes not going to end (none / 0) (#90)
    by SOS on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 02:01:42 PM EST
    if you also become an expert on the PC.

    You have to be in this day and age to keep a job in 99% of the cases.


    I know, I did learn quick (none / 0) (#91)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 02:03:30 PM EST
    I just still resent that I had to, in case you couldn't tell ;-)

    Seems like they would love an employee willing to provide her own computer, but not so much, as it turns out.


    to Sos #64 (none / 0) (#112)
    by DFLer on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 03:12:34 PM EST
    so are pcs, the tools of artists, that is.

    This is probably (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by eric on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 01:23:22 PM EST
    going to be the first volley in a PC v. Mac flame war, but to assert that Macs are somehow superior to PCs is ridiculous.  Sure having old or outdated PCs is a problem, just like having old and outdated anything.  But a new PC is far superior to a new Mac, in my view.  My productivity would plummet if I were forced to use a Mac.

    So there!


    I've grown out of that fight (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by andgarden on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 01:25:07 PM EST
    But you can take my mac from my cold, dead, hands.

    OK, to avoid the Mac v PC (none / 0) (#78)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 01:38:13 PM EST
    productivity part of it, since there are good arguments of both sides,I'll just say that jsut like your productivity would plummet if you were forced to use a Mac after using a PC all your life, so will theirs after being accustomed to using a Mac and now being forced to use a PC, and an outdated one at that. It would be nice if people had a choice. However, the DoD and national security infrastructure does not allow for that in most cases, and there is no reason for it. It is an investment worth making.

    PC's are really easy to master (none / 0) (#92)
    by SOS on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 02:05:21 PM EST
    It shouldn't be a problem. They we're invented to be used by any idiot.

    LOL I guess I'm an idiot for having one.


    What employers want (none / 0) (#93)
    by SOS on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 02:06:23 PM EST
    is for you to stop whining and do the damn job.

    I will stop whining now (none / 0) (#102)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 02:17:22 PM EST
    But mark my words - there will be changes in this area in the next couple of years and it will be because people at the top had to feel the pain.

    Amusing exchange (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by ricosuave on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 11:09:38 PM EST
    I am reading all of this with amusement on my Linux-based laptop.  I like both windows and mac, but don't understand why mac people feel some sense of superiority.  Apple is worse than Microsoft at trying to control everything you do on your computer--from the choice of hardware it runs on to the software you can use to the hardware you can connect to your computer.  (I love when iPhone users tell me they can do anything they want after they got the newest "jailbreak" hack for their phone.)

    Switching from Windows to a Mac is like trading in your Ford for a Chevy (are those companies still in business?).  You are not getting some handcrafted, non-corporate, freedom box--no matter what the hip commercials tell you.


    Oh, now that's funny (none / 0) (#146)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 10:04:50 AM EST
    Try to install a printer from Linux, just once, and you'll never use it again. Years and years of development, and it's still not ready for desktop primetime.

    Not true anymore (none / 0) (#150)
    by ricosuave on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 09:26:05 AM EST
    The first time I tried to install a printer, it was a nightmare.

    The latest go-round (with a much newer printer with built-in networking) took a few clicks and worked perfectly.  HP has a linux package that makes the whole thing smooth and easy.

    But I will admit that the lack of a fully capable exchange client is annoying.


    Although (none / 0) (#73)
    by squeaky on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 01:28:46 PM EST
    The silver lining is that Macs have relatively no virus problems compared to PCs. Were Macs to gain the popularity they deserve, we would have to constantly be on the alert for hackers attacks.

    I do feel for you though, having to go a few steps backwards at work must be a bummer.


    Macs come with a (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by eric on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 01:38:57 PM EST
    built in virus - the operating system!

    BOOOOO (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by andgarden on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 01:40:35 PM EST
    Quiet you!

    Mac fever - Catch it! (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 01:45:26 PM EST
    Fever? (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by SOS on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 02:07:24 PM EST
    Seems more like some kind of Psychosis.



    Ha! Probably so! (none / 0) (#100)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 02:15:08 PM EST
    Heh (none / 0) (#104)
    by eric on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 02:39:03 PM EST
    that's a good one.

    huh? (none / 0) (#55)
    by Blowback on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 12:54:55 PM EST
    When did he do this?

    Today (none / 0) (#67)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 01:21:26 PM EST
    Joe Bruno apparently (none / 0) (#63)
    by andgarden on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 01:17:52 PM EST
    just got indicted.

    Awww (none / 0) (#65)
    by squeaky on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 01:18:47 PM EST
    Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy...

    Figures (none / 0) (#66)
    by SOS on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 01:19:18 PM EST
    American businessman and Republican politician.

    Not big news. (none / 0) (#72)
    by SOS on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 01:25:33 PM EST
    I figured Fluffington would jump on this.

    One can't even (none / 0) (#68)
    by SOS on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 01:22:42 PM EST
    go to Argentina or Paraguay without discovering all your neighbors are cons, criminals on the lam, ex dictators, politicians, etc, rather then people wanting to start a fresh life away from the cesspool of "Post 2000 Modern Civilization".

    Questions around appointee (none / 0) (#74)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 01:28:56 PM EST
    William Lynn, Obama's appointee for Deputy Secretary of Defense, is being looked at very closely by Carl Levin and the Armed Services Committee because of his previous work at Raytheon and because of Obama's new ethics rules

    President Obama has nominated William Lynn, an undersecretary of defense during President Clinton's second term, to be deputy to Secretary Robert Gates.

    Lynn was a senior vice president at Raytheon, which has billions of dollars in Defense Department contracts. It is is the maker of the Army's Patriot missile system and the Navy's Tomahawk missile and is developing a global positioning satellite communication system for the Air Force.

    As deputy secretary, Lynn would be involved in the process of budgeting and acquisitions, in addition to running the day-to-day operations of the Defense Department.

    In a statement released Thursday, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan, said the committee -- which must vote to confirm Lynn before a vote of the full Senate -- needs more information in light of the Obama administration's newly announced ethics rules.

    "Given the president's new stricter rules requiring his appointees to recuse themselves from matters or issues on which they have lobbied, the Senate Armed Services Committee will need further information before proceeding with the nomination of William J. Lynn III to be deputy secretary of defense," the statement said.

    "The committee will await the administration's assessment as to whether the new rules will preclude Mr. Lynn, who was a registered lobbyist for a defense contractor, from participating in key Department of Defense decisions, and if so, whether a waiver will be forthcoming and what the scope of the waiver will be."

    In announcing the new ethics laws, Obama said that anyone who works for him who also has worked as a lobbyist would be held to a high standard


    ecstatic (none / 0) (#86)
    by jedimom on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 01:50:16 PM EST
    Im frakin ecstatic that Kennedy is OUT, she did not have the experience. If some commenters think that not much experience is needed to be a US Senator, again I would say that is how we got the bunch of yahoos we have in there now in protected incumbent status...

    The rallying cry remember Caroline Kennedy if anything enourages me to keep blogging, commenting, calling and generally pestering friends family and politicians to DO THE RIGHT THING by the people...

    On the other hand if you like me, think you DO need experience to be a Senator, and Obama had some as a state legislator remember, then you surely agree Caroline Kennedy was UNFIT for the office, the charitable school funds she ran turned out to be one hour a week for only 2 yrs not the 6 they said, AND she didnt even VOTE half the time, gimme a break

    Gillebrand is well qualified, and frankly I LIKE her moderate positions, she voted against the 700TARP, which should never ever have been passed without strings..she said in her acceptance speech she plans to work to get McCarthys gun checks passed etc, she is a good fit for the people of NYS, many of whom you will recall are RED...

    Sen. Sam Brownback (none / 0) (#113)
    by DFLer on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 03:14:59 PM EST
    said the Gitmo prisoners could not be sent to Leavenworth because Leavenworth was an "educational institution" !

    Actually, it is (none / 0) (#115)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 03:19:45 PM EST

    They teach all kinds of things there, including intelligence.  Probably wouldn't want to put people we "suspect" of being bad people near where we are training military personnel to possibly fight these same people.


    Well, there (none / 0) (#125)
    by eric on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 03:55:13 PM EST
    are lots of things in Leavenworth.  Obviously the prison isn't the college.  And there are both a federal prison and the military prison there.

    I doubt very much that Obama personally approved (none / 0) (#116)
    by Edger on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 03:26:34 PM EST
    a specific military operation, but I also think he's going to have a very hard time bucking the foreign policy establishment and the military industrial and media complex, or if even he wants to.

    I hope he surprises me and puts a stop to it, but I don't think he will, after already saying he's planning an Afghanistan "surge" of 30,000 troops and his comments about "a country at war" in the inaugural speech...

    And the fake war on terror that creates people retaliating because they don't like being bombed and killed... sorry, I mean terrorists, is going to keep rollin' right along now?

    "The events that affected my soul in a direct way started in 1982 when America permitted the Israelis to invade Lebanon and the American Sixth Fleet helped them in that. This bombardment began and many were killed and injured and others were terrorised and displaced." "I couldn't forget those moving scenes, blood and severed limbs, women and children sprawled everywhere. Houses destroyed along with their occupants and high rises demolished over their residents, rockets raining down on our home without mercy." "The situation was like a crocodile meeting a helpless child, powerless except for his screams. Does the crocodile understand a conversation that doesn't include a weapon? And the whole world saw and heard but it didn't respond." "And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children."

    Somehow this needs to change. I'm kind of bushed after eight years of this crap.

    The Military is authorized to (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 03:33:19 PM EST
    throw missiles at countries we aren't in military conflict with and NOT get the approval of the Commander in Chief?

    Gosh, I hope you are wrong about that!


    This Has Been Going On FOr Awhile (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by squeaky on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 03:37:54 PM EST
    If anything Obama did nothing to stop it. I have been unhappy with the Afghanistan adventure, and think that it is misguided. For reasons beyond my comprehension, there are very few Dem congresscritters that want  to end hostilities in Afghanistan.

    War is profitable... (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Edger on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 03:40:45 PM EST
    Artist Richard Prince Gets Sued, Again (none / 0) (#126)
    by squeaky on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 03:59:00 PM EST
    However, the question facing the judge if the case goes to court will largely boil down to whether Prince's use of the images was transformative and therefore permissible under the United States' doctrine of "fair use", which allows for limited reproduction of copyright imagery for the purpose of parody or other creative ends.

    I would be POed if Prince used my material without asking too, but there is little question in my mind that Prince's paintings are transformative. Whether or not a judge will see it that way is another story. The very fact that Prince has appropriated the images transforms their intended message. Prince also uses collage and paint, refers to Picasso et al, and obviously renders Cariou's photographs into a truly transformative artworks.

    Prince himself, who has said of his work that he's "practising without a license", unapologetically problematises issues of authorship. The essay for the show's catalogue, for instance, was written by James Frey, the controversial author who fabricated whole swathes of his 2003 "memoir", A Million Little Pieces.


    Saudi's Stirring (none / 0) (#130)
    by squeaky on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 04:55:41 PM EST
    Now that BushCo is out, the Saudi's are talking tough. Maybe even  aligning with Iran... Here is an excerpt of a message from Turki al-Faisal to Obama.

    The incoming US administration will be inheriting a "basket full of snakes" in the region, but there are things that can be done to help calm them down. First, President Barack Obama must address the disaster in Gaza and its causes. Inevitably, he will condemn Hamas's firing of rockets at Israel.

    When he does that, he should also condemn Israel's atrocities against the Palestinians and support a UN resolution to that effect; forcefully condemn the Israeli actions that led to this conflict, from settlement building in the West Bank to the blockade of Gaza and the targeted killings and arbitrary arrests of Palestinians; declare America's intention to work for a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction, with a security umbrella for countries that sign up and sanctions for those that do not; call for an immediate withdrawal of Israeli forces from Shab'ah Farms in Lebanon; encourage Israeli-Syrian negotiations for peace; and support a UN resolution guaranteeing Iraq's territorial integrity.


    Last week, President Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad of Iran wrote a letter to King Abdullah, explicitly recognising Saudi Arabia as the leader of the Arab and Muslim worlds and calling on him to take a more confrontational role over "this obvious atrocity and killing of your own children" in Gaza. The communiqué is significant because the de facto recognition of the kingdom's primacy from one of its most ardent foes reveals the extent that the war has united an entire region, both Shia and Sunni. Further, Mr Ahmadi-Nejad's call for Saudi Arabia to lead a jihad against Israel would, if pursued, create unprecedented chaos and bloodshed in the region.

    via Moon Of Alabama

    "Obama reverses abortion-funds policy" (none / 0) (#135)
    by chezmadame on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 06:04:08 PM EST
    "President Barack Obama has signed an executive order ending the ban on federal funds for international groups that perform abortions or provide information on the option...

    ...Obama signed it quietly, without coverage by the media, late on Friday afternoon, a contrast to the midday signings with fanfare of executive orders on other subjects earlier in the week."


    His first Friday night dump as president.
    How progressive.

    He can (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by JThomas on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 06:59:58 PM EST
    never satisfy people like you. It is not enough that he does what you want, but he has to do it exactly the right day of the week or you call him anti-progressive..

    Do you ever listen to yourself?


    Some grudges never die (none / 0) (#151)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 12:19:19 PM EST
    Amen (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by daring grace on Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 12:53:25 PM EST
    May all his future 'Friday dumps' be actions that benefit the world as much as this one.

    I'll take the substance over the hoopla any time.